Munna Lal vs Ganga Devi

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Munna Lal (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Amabala, dated 19.1.1999. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala Cantt. and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioner giving him three months time to vacate the demised premises.

The relevant facts are that the respondent had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. It was asserted that the rent was Rs. 10/- per month. The petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent frond 1.10.19888 to 28.2.1989 besides house tax. It was further asserted that the premises in question is more than 100 years old and it was made of Katcha-pucca bricks. It has outlived its utility. The building comprises of six houses of which five houses have already fallen. The entire building can be reconstructed at a stretch. Even the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

The petitioner contested the eviction application. There was no dispute raised regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was pointed out that the rent has already been tendered on the first date of hearing. So far as the suit premises were concerned, the plea raised was that it was a separate unit and has nothing to do with the other houses which had fallen. Even the other houses were stated to have fallen because of the negligence of the trustees. It was urged that, in fact, the trustees wanted in increase the rent. The suit property is not unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

The learned Rent Controller held that the property in question is not unsafe and unfit for human residence and accordingly dismissed the petition for eviction. Regarding the other issues, there was no controversy.

In appeal; the learned Appellate Authority held that the suit property is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and accordingly an order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that there were five other houses which had fallen but the same were not part of the said building. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the property in question. The property in question has independent house number he assailed the report of the Municipal Engineer by stating that he did not see the premises properly and only one wall was stated to be bulging out which does not prove that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the contrary, the respondent''s plea was that it was a katcha building built more than 100 years old. It is a part of the same building of which five other houses had fallen. Even when the Municipal Engineer went upstairs, there were vibrations.

In the present case, there is no dispute that there were five building which have since fallen. According to the petitioner, the present premises in dispute is not a part of the same building. Even in the written statement, there is a denial by the petitioner. But the evidence of PW1 Sh. M.L. Gupta which has been acted upon by the learned Appellate Authority indicates that though different municipal numbers had been given but it is one building. This is a finding of fact. The learned appellate Authority also found that the plan shows that it is a one composite building. It can, therefore, be said that the said finding is erroneous.

Not only that, while adjudicating if the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, it has not to be seen that the building is going to fall immediately. The court will not act when the damage occur. The overall structure and soundness of the same has to be seen.

In the present case, mumti has already fallen. The Municipal Engineer examined by the respondent indicated in his report that the two walls of the back room had been set up recently with old bricks and cement mortar and to hide this fact it was newly white washed. It clearly reveals that the structure is not sound. It has further revealed that the balies had cracked. Once it is so, the building must be taken to be unsafe. Even when the Municipal Engineer walked on the roof, there were vibrations. Therefore the findings of the learned Appellate Authority, in that light does not require any interference and it must be held that it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

In the case of Smt. Chando Devi and Ors. v. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mathura, 1984(1) Rent Control Reporter 267, Allahabad High Court was concerned with the expression "dilapidated" occurring in the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was held that it means a building beyond repairs and that merely because the building Was old does not mean that it is dilapidated. But the cited decision will not help the learned counsel for the petitioner because the expression "dilapidated" occurring in the Rent Act applicable to Uttar Pradesh is not the same as when it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In fact, as noticed above, the suit premises, in fact, have been found to be unsafe for human habitation.

In that event, reliance was placed on the decision of this court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. by LR''s v. Gurcharan Singh and Ors. of Amritsar, (1989)96 P.L.R. 691, wherein it was held that the condition of the premises in dispute had to be seen and not the condition of the other parts of the main building. At this stage, this Court need not go into the correctness of the wide observation but suffice to say that even when the structure by itself is not safe and unfit for human habitation, as noted above, the ratio decidendi of the abovesaid decision has very little say to the controversy in hand.

As a result of the aforesaid, there is no hesitation in affirming the finding of fact of the learned Appellate Authority that the building in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner is given three months time to vacate the suit premises.